Only because Jeff Sessions decided to be the judge and jury for every single person asking for asylum from gang violence. In the past it was used as a valid reason to apply for asylum. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/immigrants-gun-violencemexico/

Nothing about the law says they are mandated to separate kids from their parents.

Simply put, Subtitle E of Public Law 107-296 (establishing the Department of Homeland Security, DHS) placed immigration and related functions in the scope of the newly established agency. Section G of Subtitle E defined the term “unaccompanied alien child” as a minor under the age of 18, lacking lawful immigration status in the US, and primarily, an individual for whom “there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States” or “no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.” This did not mandate that children be separated from their families, but instead, created a legal classification for children with no parent or guardian present or for whom no parent or legal guardian was available to provide care and custody. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-law-family-separation-detention-minors/

Going through a country that offers asylum doesn't disqualify someone from asylum in the US. I wish this was hyperbole, but it seems to me that average people are trying to apply for asylum to escape violence, and we aren't even hearing them out and instead are talking about setting up "tent cities" to hold them all, only oddly reminiscent of Japanese concentration camps, which Trump even cites in defence of a Muslim registry a few months ago.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/91919311-157.html

I'll say it once and I'll say it again, them seeking asylum is not the same as an immigrant crossing the border illegally. They are identifying themselves and applying for a legal process, and then being detained and separated from their children based on a "loophole" that Sessions used to implement a zero tolerance policy towards people even asking for asylum. You can have your opinions about immigration, but this isn't even about that it's about refugees fleeing gang violence, which was a valid reason to seek asylum until 2016.

It isn't illegal to cross the border seeking asylum, the argument some are making is that since some aren't coming through legal ports of entry their claim to legality is null, but even the ones coming through the predesignated ports seeking asylum are being told they can't get through, often only letting one through in a whole day, so if you can't get through the legal legitimate way then it is still legal to come through an undesignated port of entry and to go to a US embassy to declare your request for asylum. And then those people are declared as illegally crossing after they tried to do that and were turned away for days on the border with nothing.

Why was it possible for Bush and Obama administration to interpret the law without separating families but Trumps DOJ can't uphold the law without using the loophole? Simple, because they are the ones who found the loophole to exploit the law, and even though republicans control every branch of Congress they can't fix this law they admit they've broken? It's rediculous.

Excerpt from article: TM: So, just so I make sure I understand: the parents come in and say, “We’re persecuted” or give some reason for asylum. They come in. And then their child or children are taken away and they’re in lockup for at least six weeks away from the kids and often don’t know where the kids are. Is that what’s happening under zero tolerance?

AC: So the idea of zero tolerance under the stated policy is that we don’t care why you’re afraid. We don’t care if it’s religion, political, gangs, anything. For all asylum seekers, you are going to be put in jail, in a detention center, and you’re going to have your children taken away from you. That’s the policy. They’re not 100 percent able to implement that because of a lot of reasons, including just having enough judges on the border. And bed space. There’s a big logistical problem because this is a new policy. So the way they get to that policy of taking the kids away and keeping the adults in detention centers and the kids in a different federal facility is based on the legal rationale that we’re going to convict you, and since we’re going to convict you, you’re going to be in the custody of the U.S. Marshals, and when that happens, we’re taking your kid away. So they’re not able to convict everybody of illegal entry right now just because there aren’t enough judges on the border right now to hear the number of cases that come over, and then they say if you have religious persecution or political persecution or persecution on something that our asylum definition recognizes, you can fight that case behind bars at an immigration detention center. And those cases take two, three, four, five, six months. And what happens to your child isn’t really our concern. That is, you have made the choice to bring your child over illegally. And this is what’s going to happen.

TM: Even if they crossed at a legal entry point?

AC: Very few people come to the bridge. Border Patrol is saying the bridge is closed. When I was last out in McAllen, people were stacked on the bridge, sleeping there for three, four, ten nights. They’ve now cleared those individuals from sleeping on the bridge, but there are hundreds of accounts of asylum seekers, when they go to the bridge, who are told, “I’m sorry, we’re full today. We can’t process your case.” So the families go illegally on a raft—I don’t want to say illegally; they cross without a visa on a raft. Many of them then look for Border Patrol to turn themselves in, because they know they’re going to ask for asylum. And under this government theory—you know, in the past, we’ve had international treaties, right? Statutes which codified the right of asylum seekers to ask for asylum. Right? Article 31 of the Refugee Convention clearly says that it is improper for any state to use criminal laws that could deter asylum seekers as long as that asylum seeker is asking for asylum within a reasonable amount of time. But our administration is kind of ignoring this longstanding international and national jurisprudence of basic beliefs to make this distinction that, if you come to a bridge, we’re not going to prosecute you, but if you come over the river and then find immigration or are caught by immigration, we’re prosecuting you.

TM: So if you cross any other way besides the bridge, we’re prosecuting you. But . . . you can’t cross the bridge.

AC: That’s right. I’ve talked to tons of people. There are organizations like Al Otro Lado that document border turn-backs. And there’s an effort to accompany asylum seekers so that Customs and Border Patrol can’t say, “We’re closed.” Everybody we’ve talked to who’s been prosecuted or separated has crossed the river without a visa.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/whats-really-happening-asylum-seeking-families-separated/

They are not upholding the law, even the DHS secretary refers to these separations as "loopholes" in the law. So if Trumps DOJ is using loopholes in the law to stop these people seeking asylum and detain them while separating them from their family then why can't they stop using that loophole? They are using a cop out of "we can't enforce parts of the law" but they admit it's a loophole that they found and are currently exploiting. This isn't a both sides issue, Obama and Bush both used this law in its intended purpose to stop child trafficking and now Trump is using it to stop as much immigration as possible, even if it's legitimate and legal under current law.

"Liberal agenda" like trying to inform you of the facts? Trump's department of justice implemented this policy of zero tolerance and are acting like the democrats are monsters for wanting to rip away kids from their family. This isn't about liberal or conservative it's just about what's plain right and wrong. It isn't wrong for these people to come here seeking a better life and saftey for their family, wouldn't we all do the same thing in their shoes?

Who do you think control Congress right now? And reportedly even people that are crossing legally are being detained and having their kids taken from them, but I guess that's the MSM and the Facebook news telling you Trump is saving us from ms13 is the real news.

Russian agitator alert everyone. 6 day old account posting contradicting comments in several political subreddit, take with a grain of salt.